Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
PLD 1980 Rev, 49

TAGIO vs ALI SHER

CitationPLD 1980 Rev, 49
CourtSindh Revenue Board
Case No.Case No, S. Review 112 of 1975-76,
Date1978-10-15
Judge(s)Abdullah D. Baloch
ResultPetition rejected

ORDER

' This is a petition for review of the order dated 20-1-1976, passed by my learned predecessor, Mr. Bashir Ahmed Morani, whereby he upheld the revision petition of the respondents in respect of grant of an area of 90 acres of abandoned village in deh Suhliani, taluka Kandhkot.

2. Heard the counsel for the parties on 15-10-1978 when orders were reserved. The disputed land had been granted to the petitioner on harap conditions in open katchery with effect from Rabi 1973-74. The appeal of the respondents was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Sukkur Division, vide his order dated 29-4-1975. The then Additional Member-II, B.

0. R., Sind, had ordered cancellation of the grant of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had failed to establish his preferential rights over the grant of the land and that the respondents were residing nearer to the disputed land. Besides Muhammad Hayat had produced receipts for payment of removal fine during 1974-75 to show that the land is in his possession.

3. Obviously there were two concurrent findings in favour of the petitioners and in the circumstances of case, there was hardly any justification at revisional stage to call upon the petitioner to substantiate his claim. The fact that the respondents hold the adjacent land does not create their Muhag right as well. Besides the papers produced even at the revisional stage show that the adjoining land belongs to Ali Beg and others and not to the respondents themselves. Since the land had already been granted to the Petitioner from Rabi 1973-74, the question of payment of remokal fine by Muhammad Hayat during the year 1974-75. In respect of this land does not arise and appears to be a managed affair. In any case, the respondents have no claim moreso when they had even failed to establish their claim in open kutchery.

4. For the above reasons, the cancellation of the grant of the petitioner was not proper and justified.

Consequently the review petition is upheld and the grant in respect of the disputed land is restored to the petitioner.

Petition rejected.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch